Making a murder

[Benny B]

So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?

The conspiracy took place 30 years ago; the jurors weren't involved. 

Hopefully, you're not using the kerfuffle of 2005 to justify a blatant miscarriage of justice twenty years earlier that directly led to the otherwise avoidable assault and rape of another woman back when Halbach was barely old enough to tie her own shoes.  Or did you miss that part?

Again, the title is Making a Murderer.  Not Becoming a Murderer.  Not Diary of a Murderer. Making a Murderer.  Hell, Fassbender said it himself... being locked up for 18 years for a crime you didn't commit can drive a person to kill.

Tell me, Navin... when you saw The Jerk for the first time, did you walk out of the movie theater thinking the plot of the movie was about an inventor who got in over his head?

[NavinRJohnson]

How does "being near the trial" make your opinion any more relevant than someone in China?

And aren't most, if not all news programs, papers, magazines "near the trial" especially biased towards the prosecutors version of events?

I wasn't near the trial. No one was...except the jurors. That makes their opinion exponentially more relevant than yours, mine, or anyone else's. That's what I was referring to.

As to your second point about media coverage, no, I don't believe that at all. George Zimmerman immediately comes to mind. Rodney King not far behind.

All of that said, I guess I do consider the opinion of reporters who actually covered the trial at the time to be a bit more relevant than those who may not have. the links I posted the other day are a good example of that.

[NavinRJohnson]

The conspiracy took place 30 years ago; the jurors weren't involved. 

Hopefully, you're not using the kerfuffle of 2005 to justify a blatant miscarriage of justice twenty years earlier that directly led to the otherwise avoidable assault and rape of another woman back when Halbach was barely old enough to tie her own shoes.  Or did you miss that part?

Again, the title is Making a Murderer.  Not Becoming a Murderer.  Not Diary of a Murderer. Making a Murderer.  Hell, Fassbender said it himself... being locked up for 18 years for a crime you didn't commit can drive a person to kill.

Tell me, Navin... when you saw The Jerk for the first time, did you walk out of the movie theater thinking the plot of the movie was about an inventor who got in over his head?

I think I get it now...since the idea that he was wrongly convicted in 2005 has now been pretty comprehensively debunked, now the documentary is in reality all about the 1985 case (even though 80%  of the series is about the 2005 case/trial, the supposed conspiracy, etc.). Got it. 1985 was a miscarriage of justice. Find me someone who denies that. That doesn't explain people signing petitions for a new trial, claims of planted evidence, coerced confessions, etc.

Everyone is to blame for Theresa Halbach's rape, torture, and murder except Steven Avery, is that it?

[Benny B]

I think I get it now...since the idea that he was wrongly convicted in 2005 has now been pretty comprehensively debunked, now the documentary is in reality all about the 1985 case (even though 80%  of the series is about the 2005 case/trial, the supposed conspiracy, etc.). Got it. 1985 was a miscarriage of justice. Find me someone who denies that.

Ken Peterson, for one.  Gene Kusche, two.

Need I go on?

[314warrior]

Navin, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case having observed it so closely 10 years back.  Could you explain the car key to me?  Why wasn't if found in the hours and hours of searching that one tiny room?  Why was it found by someone who shouldn't have been in that room?  Why didn't it have Halbach's DNA on it?

This piece of evidence is perplexing to me.  It must be obvious to you.  Please fill us in.

[Lennys Tap]

Saw an interview with Avery's ex fiancé' - claims she lied about talking to a "calm" Steven at 5pm the night of the murder because he threatened her. Said he routinely beat the shyte out of her and that "bitches owed him" because of his 1985 unfair conviction. Said she told the makers of the documentary that her remarks about Steven were lies told out of fear and asked them to cut those statements. They didn't.

[NavinRJohnson]

Navin, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case having observed it so closely 10 years back.  Could you explain the car key to me?  Why wasn't if found in the hours and hours of searching that one tiny room? 

Because nobody found it.

Why was it found by someone who shouldn't have been in that room?

Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.

Why didn't it have Halbach's DNA on it?

I don't know the answer to that anymore than you do. You know who's DNA was on it though? Steven Avery's.

Here again, you have nothing more than a suspicion of what could have happened, to try to support a theory of innocence. The actual facts and physical evidence however, provide proof of guilt. As soon as someone can provide some evidence, any kind of actual evidence to support the theory, it will be more worthy of consideration. Until then it is nothing more than that, a theory.

[Hards Alumni]

Because nobody found it.

Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.

I don't know the answer to that anymore than you do. You know who's DNA was on it though? Steven Avery's.

Here again, you have nothing more than a suspicion of what could have happened, to try to support a theory of innocence. The actual facts and physical evidence however, provide proof of guilt. As soon as someone can provide some evidence, any kind of actual evidence to support the theory, it will be more worthy of consideration. Until then it is nothing more than that, a theory.

lmao.

[🏀]

Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.

For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.

He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.

It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.

[NavinRJohnson]

lmao.

So I guess that means you don't have any evidence, huh?

[StillAWarrior]

Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.

You're absolutely right, and I'm probably being trolled.

It drives me crazy when people confuse "evidence" with "proof," or put another way, he confuses circumstantial evidence (i.e., evidence that requires an inference to be made) with direct evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require an inference to be made).  They're fundamentally different.  He refers to a "theory of innocence" and claims that there is no "evidence" supporting of theory of innocence.  That's simply not true.  There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that theory.  We may disagree about the quality of that evidence, but it is "evidence."  The key wasn't found during the first several searches -- that's circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  The bullet wasn't found until later -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  Lenk was present when both of those pieces of evidence were found -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  There was no blood in the room -- evidence that she wasn't murdered in that location or in the way that the confession indicated.  There was none of her blood in the garage -- evidence she wasn't killed there.  No damage to bed suggesting ties/chains -- evidence no one was bound there.  There's actually a lot of evidence.  Notably, the judge (and anyone knowledgeable about trial work) would agree with me -- it couldn't have even been presented to the jury if it wasn't relevant evidence.  No direct evidence, of course.  All is circumstantial and requires inferences.  That's pretty common.

To illustrate how common it is, it's worth nothing that it's also a "theory" that Avery killed her.  And there is no direct evidence that he did so -- only circumstantial evidence requiring inference.  Nobody saw him do it.  They just point to other facts that suggest that he did it.  Again, that's how almost every criminal case works.  But, it is obvious to me (and certainly to Navin) that there is far more and better evidence supporting the theory that Avery killed her.  Her body was found on his property; her car was found on his property; his DNA was found on her keychain; a bullet with her DNA was found in his garage; his DNA was in her car; her phone was in a barrel on his property; he was the last person known to see her alive; he specifically requested her; the confession; when in prison he said he wanted to torture women; etc.  Each of those items -- and more -- are circumstantial evidence that support the prosecution's theory that Avery killed her.  I also note that this theory -- that Avery killed her -- is the most concrete part of the prosecution's theory.  Once you get past that, the prosecution's theory gets a little hazy and shifts depending upon who is on trial (e.g., he killed her in the garage alone or he killed her in the bedroom with the nephew).

Avery doesn't have to prove his innocence, and in my mind he absolutely did not.  All they have to do is create reasonable doubt, and they presented a pretty fair amount of evidence in an effort to do that.  It wasn't enough for the 12 people who mattered.  When filtered through the minds of a couple of filmmakers, it is enough for a lot of people.  I generally have a pretty healthy respect for the jury system.  As far as I know, Avery's attorneys were generally permitted to present the evidence that supported their theory.  The jury rejected that evidence and felt that the state presented enough to prove guilt.  I'm surprised by that decision, but acknowledge that I learned of the case initially and primarily through a pre-packaged version of events that wanted me to be surprised (and shocked) by that.  I do think he probably did it, and I don't think he'll be freed.

All that said, I do still think that certain members of the Sheriff's department and the prosecution acted inappropriately.  I also think they planted evidence.  Those are not mutually exclusive from believing Avery did it.

[NavinRJohnson]

Not sure why you guys are engaging him anymore.

For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.

He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.

It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.

If anyone need to read this series, it's you, or is this guy in on the conspiracy too? Man that is getting to be one long list of co-conspirators needed to pull this thing off.

This is for episode 7, but the rest are linked at the bottom.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/

Finally, just to be clear, this guy for whom you and others are so sympathetic, lured a young girl to his house, chained her to his bed, raped and tortured her, had his nephew (whom he also sexually assaulted) do the same, before shooting her in the head and burning her body. Yet, you would rather choose to believe that law enforcement managed to pull off this elaborate frame job for which not a shred of actual evidence of any kind supporting the theory has appeared in 10 years.

[NavinRJohnson]

You're absolutely right, and I'm probably being trolled.

It drives me crazy when people confuse "evidence" with "proof," or put another way, he confuses circumstantial evidence (i.e., evidence that requires an inference to be made) with direct evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require an inference to be made).  They're fundamentally different.  He refers to a "theory of innocence" and claims that there is no "evidence" supporting of theory of innocence.  That's simply not true.  There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that theory.  We may disagree about the quality of that evidence, but it is "evidence."  The key wasn't found during the first several searches -- that's circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  The bullet wasn't found until later -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  Lenk was present when both of those pieces of evidence were found -- circumstantial evidence that it was planted.  There was no blood in the room -- evidence that she wasn't murdered in that location or in the way that the confession indicated.  There was none of her blood in the garage -- evidence she wasn't killed there.  No damage to bed suggesting ties/chains -- evidence no one was bound there.  There's actually a lot of evidence.  Notably, the judge (and anyone knowledgeable about trial work) would agree with me -- it couldn't have even been presented to the jury if it wasn't relevant evidence.  No direct evidence, of course.  All is circumstantial and requires inferences.  That's pretty common.

Oh, I fully understand that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence. I can at other times recall having had the very same argument about it on these very boards, and I don't necessarily disagree with the above. The problem in this case, is that the prosecution's theory of the case is supported by physical evidence, ballistics, DNA, phone records, taped phone conversations, eye witness accounts, and a friggin confession for God's sake. The defense developed a theory based on the circumstances. Unfortunately for them, that theory is supported by nothing but itself. At the time, and in 10 years since, nothing to provide any backing. Ten years that were spent actively preparing a documentary no less. No physical evidence, no DNA, no eye witnesses, no phone records, no photos, no video, no slip ups by the many co-conspirators.

It's funny, some of these guys fight me tooth and nail, but it's because I'm the one with my mind made up. Right. Got it. Which brings me back to my original post on this topic, I have no idea why so many seemingly bright and well educated people want to believe that what actually happened, didn't happen, and that this was some sort of frame job. From my perspective, that is the only explanation for so many people willfully ignoring the entire picture in favor of a TV show that is obviously crafted to make a particular case.

[mu03eng]

For the rest of the group, the garage was the best. Apparently she was shot in the head in there, and multiple times to the body. However, 74 IQ Avery scrubbed that garage, with all that junk, and scrubbed into layers of concrete so well it was spotless free of her DNA.

He was even smart enough to leave old samples of his own DNA everywhere, because if he scrubbed it that clean, there'd be little to no DNA.

It was only after being searched for two days, after the embarrassing coersion of a mentally challenged teenager, that they found a bullet fragment with her DNA on it. Which of course Lt. Lenk happened to be around for, again.

The DNA evidence is evidence for the prosecution but the lack of DNA is evidence for the defense. If she was chained to a bed, had her throat cut multiple times, had her hair cut, then taken to a garage and shot in the head and body multiple times.....how is there so little DNA? Seemingly the only Avery DNA(based on non-documentary sources) is the RAV4 and the key, the only Halbach DNA is the bullet fragment, the cremains, and the RAV4. Strikes me there should have been DNA every where. Additionally, way is her blood in the RAV4....dude was so lazy he had to use the RAV4 to move her the 100ft from the trailer to the garage?

[StillAWarrior]

Oh, I fully understand that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence. I can at other times recall having had the very same argument about it on these very boards, and I don't necessarily disagree with the above. The problem in this case, is that the prosecution's theory of the case is supported by physical evidence, ballistics, DNA, phone records, taped phone conversations, eye witness accounts, and a friggin confession for God's sake. The defense developed a theory based on the circumstances. Unfortunately for them, that theory is supported by nothing but itself. At the time, and in 10 years since, nothing to provide any backing. Ten years that were spent actively preparing a documentary no less. No physical evidence, no DNA, no eye witnesses, no phone records, no photos, no video, no slip ups by the many co-conspirators.

It's funny, some of these guys fight me tooth and nail, but it's because I'm the one with my mind made up. Right. Got it. Which brings me back to my original post on this topic, I have no idea why so many seemingly bright and well educated people want to believe that what actually happened, didn't happen, and that this was some sort of frame job. From my perspective, that is the only explanation for so many people willfully ignoring the entire picture in favor of a TV show that is obviously crafted to make a particular case.

For the record, the prosecution's theory against Steven Avery was not supported by a confession.  The prosecution did not enter evidence of the confession in that case (aside from the press conference, of course).  In fact, unless I'm mistaken (always possible) the prosecution argued that Avery killed her alone in the garage.  This is flatly contradicted by the confession.

I don't think there are many people here who are arguing, "what actually happened, didn't happen."  They're arguing that they have doubt.  That is a very different thing.  You are certain. Others have some doubt.  Inappropriate actions by some government officials created that doubt.

I have no idea why you, a seemingly bright and well educated person, refuse to admit several government employees engaged in questionable actions.  It's perfectly fine to be utterly convinced that Steven Avery killed this woman -- the evidence certainly points that way and the jury was also convinced -- but still acknowledge that the Sheriff's department did some shockingly stupid things that has caused some to feel doubt.  I also don't understand why, despite explaining that you understand circumstantial evidence, you continue to insist there is no evidence supporting Avery's theory.  If you keep arguing something that you apparently understand is not true...I guess you're just trolling.  Well done.

[🏀]

If anyone need to read this series, it's you, or is this guy in on the conspiracy too? Man that is getting to be one long list of co-conspirators needed to pull this thing off.

This is for episode 7, but the rest are linked at the bottom.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-7-14273518/

Finally, just to be clear, this guy for whom you and others are so sympathetic, lured a young girl to his house, chained her to his bed, raped and tortured her, had his nephew (whom he also sexually assaulted) do the same, before shooting her in the head and burning her body. Yet, you would rather choose to believe that law enforcement managed to pull off this elaborate frame job for which not a shred of actual evidence of any kind supporting the theory has appeared in 10 years.

I feel like I need to reiterate. I believe Avery was involved, no doubt. I think Avery ultimately belongs in jail.

What I don't believe in is the cracker jack DA and his ploys that put Avery into jail. He was denied a fair trial.

I read that 1130 series, which doesn't offer much that hasn't been stated. It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started. What really pisses me off is Manitowoc County started the investigation correctly, but they blew it. They couldn't stay away. Zellner will absolutely tear this apart, make Strang and Butting look like amateurs and Avery will get another trial. There won't be 12 jurors to find him guilty again with Zellner on the case.

[CreightonWarrior]

This is funny

[Benny B]

I read that 1130 series, which doesn't offer much that hasn't been stated. It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started. What really pisses me off is Manitowoc County started the investigation correctly, but they blew it. They couldn't stay away. Zellner will absolutely tear this apart, make Strang and Butting look like amateurs and Avery will get another trial. There won't be 12 jurors to find him guilty again with Zellner on the case.

Incidentally, the 1130 series presents the other side of the story using a smattering of facts conveniently placed amongst a bunch of opinions and theories.  Just like the Netflix series.

I'm going to keep repeating myself, because the irony here is that Avery may eventually walk free for a crime he did commit as a consequence of the earlier misconduct/malfeasance of law enforcement & the prosecution for which they were too busy covering their ass (for convicting him of a crime he didn't commit) when they should have been focused on the process of law.  That is what the Netflix series is all about.

[mu03eng]

Incidentally, the 1130 series presents the other side of the story using a smattering of facts conveniently placed amongst a bunch of opinions and theories.  Just like the Netflix series.

I'm going to keep repeating myself, because the irony here is that Avery may eventually walk free for a crime he did commit as a consequence of the earlier misconduct/malfeasance of law enforcement & the prosecution for which they were too busy covering their ass (for convicting him of a crime he didn't commit) when they should have been focused on the process of law.  That is what the Netflix series is all about.

It truly is ironic that in the authorities zeal to put Avery away they may have made it easier for him to go free.

Side note, one of the things I don't understand and really hate about our criminal justice system is how the prosecution can argue two different theories(that are mutually exclusive) of the crime in two different trials against essentially co-defendants. The trial against Avery was that he went it alone while Dassey's trial involved them conspiring together. How does that make sense?

[NavinRJohnson]

 It continues the narrative that pisses me off, Avery was guilty before the trial started.

I'll say one thing on this and then move on, because I honestly don't care anymore. Everyone will move on from this and the guy is gonna die in prison which is what he deserves.

The above is what pisses me off, and is frankly something I do not understand. Of course he was guilty before the trial started. You know why? Because he's guilty.  Is your expectation that a prosecutor is to consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty? No, that's not how it works. The jury has to do that, the judge needs to be impartial, but a prospector's repsonsibility is to prove the guilt they believe exists, so for the life of me I don't know what you (and others who have said the same thing) are talking about.

Unless of course you are referring to the jurors believing he was guilty before the trail began, because as you point out, 7 of them began deliberations leaning toward not guilty, so that doesn't make sense, particularly since being an expert on juries in mtprder trails, that seven number is outrageously high.  Maybe the judge was in on it too. So when you say the narrative that he was guilty before the trail started pisses you off, guilty in the eyes of whom, and what was the impact of that? The media? The Public? Doesn't matter. It just strikes me as a very silly argument. If he did it, obviously he is in fact guilty. If he's proven guilty in the eyes of the jury, he's convicted, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Benny B]

It truly is ironic that in the authorities zeal to put Avery away they may have made it easier for him to go free.

Side note, one of the things I don't understand and really hate about our criminal justice system is how the prosecution can argue two different theories(that are mutually exclusive) of the crime in two different trials against essentially co-defendants. The trial against Avery was that he went it alone while Dassey's trial involved them conspiring together. How does that make sense?

Unless the prosecution tries them as co-defendants (i.e. a single trial), due process requires that each case stand on its own; therefore the prosecution is free to argue separate theories in both trials just as the defense is able to present separate theories in both.

Also, consider that in most criminal cases involving multiple defendants, one or more of the defendants will usually plea out to a lesser charge so that the prosecution can ensure a conviction against at least one.  Sometimes there is no plea bargain but the evidence against one is more damning than it is against the other.  Sometimes facts/evidence that were exhibited in one trial are - for a variety of reasons - barred from exclusion in the other trial... any one of these could require a different strategy for the prosecution in different trials.

For example, Kratz thought he could effectively use Dassey's confession to convict Dassey, but if he used it in Avery's trial, Dassey could be cross-examined by the defense which could have spelled all sorts of trouble for Avery's prosecution insomuch as Dassey would have been discredited as a liar and, possibly, could have easily been portrayed by Avery's defense as the actual killer on cross-examination.

It all comes down to what the prosecution believes they can best utilize to prove their case and win a conviction (or what the defense thinks best rebuts the prosecution's argument).  Sometimes that's soup from the same cauldron, sometimes it's not.

[🏀]

I'll say one thing on this and then move on, because I honestly don't care anymore. Everyone will move on from this and the guy is gonna die in prison which is what he deserves.

The above is what pisses me off, and is frankly something I do not understand. Of course he was guilty before the trial started. You know why? Because he's guilty.  Is your expectation that a prosecutor is to consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty? No, that's not how it works. The jury has to do that, the judge needs to be impartial, but a prospector's repsonsibility is to prove the guilt they believe exists, so for the life of me I don't know what you (and others who have said the same thing) are talking about.

Unless of course you are referring to the jurors believing he was guilty before the trail began, because as you point out, 7 of them began deliberations leaning toward not guilty, so that doesn't make sense, particularly since being an expert on juries in mtprder trails, that seven number is outrageously high.  Maybe the judge was in on it too. So when you say the narrative that he was guilty before the trail started pisses you off, guilty in the eyes of whom, and what was the impact of that? The media? The Public? Doesn't matter. It just strikes me as a very silly argument. If he did it, obviously he is in fact guilty. If he's proven guilty in the eyes of the jury, he's convicted, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Kratz said it himself, Avery was swimming up stream the entire time. No one is guilty before a trial.

Kratz did a beautiful job of making Avery guilty prior to trial, that horrendous press conference after the made up Dassey confession was absolute bush league that only would happen in the sticks like Manitowoc/Calumet.

This will be a fun thread to revisit, and I respect your opinion.

[mu03eng]

Unless the prosecution tries them as co-defendants (i.e. a single trial), due process requires that each case stand on its own; therefore the prosecution is free to argue separate theories in both trials just as the defense is able to present separate theories in both.

Also, consider that in most criminal cases involving multiple defendants, one or more of the defendants will usually plea out to a lesser charge so that the prosecution can ensure a conviction against at least one.  Sometimes there is no plea bargain but the evidence against one is more damning than it is against the other.  Sometimes facts/evidence that were exhibited in one trial are - for a variety of reasons - barred from exclusion in the other trial... any one of these could require a different strategy for the prosecution in different trials.

For example, Kratz thought he could effectively use Dassey's confession to convict Dassey, but if he used it in Avery's trial, Dassey could be cross-examined by the defense which could have spelled all sorts of trouble for Avery's prosecution insomuch as Dassey would have been discredited as a liar and, possibly, could have easily been portrayed by Avery's defense as the actual killer on cross-examination.

It all comes down to what the prosecution believes they can best utilize to prove their case and win a conviction (or what the defense thinks best rebuts the prosecution's argument).  Sometimes that's soup from the same cauldron, sometimes it's not.

I understand it, but it's still illogical. I have a crime that was committed which could have only occurred one way but I can offer two completely different theories in an effort to get a conviction. If maintaining a single theory across all trials means someone goes free, then that speaks to either a flaw in the theory or a flaw in the evidence.

I think this is partly a result of the focus on conviction rates and not on the delivery of justice. DAs are trained to plea cases out but if they have to go to trial you better win. Doesn't matter whether it's the "right thing" or not.

I'd much rather have a few guilty people go free than any innocent people convicted

(weird to have to put this note here, but I mean this all generically, not specifically to Avery)

[Spotcheck Billy]

Because he, who was not in the room by himself BTW, was the one looking for it, and it was also entirely legal for him to have been in that room.
 

I don't believe that we actually know that. IIRC a Calumet officer was present in the trailer with 3 Manitowoc sheriffs but he did not actually state that he was physically watching Lenk when he discovered the key.

[jsglow]

Wait just a minute.  I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7.  Is that correct?  Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe?  Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t?  Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.

I'm still of the mindset that Avery likely committed the crime.  I'm also still of the mindset that Manitowoc Co. 'helped' support the evidence.